Keir Starmer Labour Leader

[Balljy]

If Nick Clegg hadn't been so incompetent, we would have PR already. The Lib Dems blew that chance unfortunately so let's hope they learned the lessons if they get another chance at the next election.

 

[Djemba-Djemba]

If Nick Clegg hadn't been so incompetent, we would have PR already. The Lib Dems blew that chance unfortunately so let's hope they learned the lessons if they get another chance at the next election.

Am I right in thinking PR would potentially hurt Labour but also make it almost impossible for the Tories to ever win a majority again?

If that's the case PR is an absolute must .

 

[Balljy]

Am I right in thinking PR would potentially hurt Labour but also make it almost impossible for the Tories to ever win a majority again?

If that's the case PR is an absolute must .

Yeah, PR generally means you get a lot more centrist government overall without the wild swings as the norm is for alliances to be formed. There is a viewpoint that it leads to less decisions as majority governments wouldn't take over parliament, but it stops what we've had for the last decade certainly.

 

[Drifter]

Why is that antisemite even commenting on Labour Party issues... he should be concentrating on running as an independent or sorting his own party out

 

[Buster15]

Look I imagine my politics are very similar to yours. I'd love a proper left wing Government, if the option was Corbyn as PM or Starmer as PM I'd want Corbyn to win every time.

I just think it's been 12 years now of The Tories, and they're getting more and more right wing each leader they choose and more and more dangerous. You aren't going to change the system from the opposition.

You might want Corbyn to win.... but the rest of the country told you something completely different.
Quite right. You are not going to change anything in opposition.
On that basis, you have to start from a position of being seen by the majority as someone they want to vote for.

 

[neverdie]

On that basis, you have to start from a position of being seen by the majority as someone they want to vote for.

what does starmer's labour represent to you? what policies will they unleash when they storm the bastille?

you should also remember that while 2019 became a ge that hung upon a nationalist view of exit from the european union, 2017 was a very close call. the point is that circumstances move the fortunes of party leaders. corbyn wasn't in opposition during and after a pandemic, a war, and the worst cost of living and general economic crisis in our lifetime. the latter all being key areas corbyn scored well on. it's nonsense to pretend that labour couldn't win from the left. they're up against a 12 year old austerity government that's already fallen apart internally and is only externally mobile by force of illusion. it's a choice labour makes to abandon its left wing positions and purge any slightly left leaning members. it's a choice they make to be right wing, that is. and anyone explaining that away without some form of proof is delusional.

 

[Buster15]

what does starmer's labour represent to you? what policies will they unleash when they storm the bastille?

you should also remember that while 2019 became a ge that hung upon a nationalist view of exit from the european union, 2017 was a very close call. the point is that circumstances move the fortunes of party leaders. corbyn wasn't in opposition during and after a pandemic, a war, and the worst cost of living and general economic crisis in our lifetime. the latter all being key areas corbyn scored well on

British policies is as much about image as policies.
And much as we may not like it, Britain is unlikely to vote in significant enough numbers for a left wing party. When was the last time Britain actually voted for a left wing party?

What Starmers Labour Party means to me is an end to the most corrupt and inept government in my lifetime and a government focused on the people.

 

[neverdie]

What Starmers Labour Party means to me is an end to the most corrupt and inept government in my lifetime and a government focused on the people.

fantasies, then.

britain voted left up until the 70s. it was felt, by many, that it had gone too far to the left. we all know the disaster that followed. most now will admit that it's gone too far to the right. blair was not left wing but he did have some classic left wing policies, like focus on education and public nhs at the heart of his 1997 election. he also had policies to go with the public relations. it's worth putting "public" before nhs in that sentence, too.

you can't claim majority support for nationalization across the spectrum, which does exist in the uk, and then say that the country isnt left wing. wanting nationalized public services is left wing policy. it's also highly popular.

 

[Dobba]

fantasies, then.

britain voted left up until the 70s. it was felt, by many, that it had gone too far to the left. we all know the disaster that followed. most now will admit that it's gone too far to the right. blair was not left wing but he did have some classic left wing policies, like focus on education and public nhs at the heart of his 1997 election. he also had policies to go with the public relations. it's worth putting "public" before nhs in that sentence, too.

you can't claim majority support for nationalization across the spectrum, which does exist in the uk, and then say that the country isnt left wing. wanting nationalized public services is left wing policy. it's also highly popular.

Unfortunately the P in PFI doesn't stand for public.

 

[Sweet Square]

I mean even the leader of the Labour republican movement thinks its reasonable to sing the anthem to mark the death

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63024360

Imo this is just shows the sorry state of republican politics in Britain.

 

[Djemba-Djemba]

British policies is as much about image as policies.
And much as we may not like it, Britain is unlikely to vote in significant enough numbers for a left wing party. When was the last time Britain actually voted for a left wing party?

What Starmers Labour Party means to me is an end to the most corrupt and inept government in my lifetime and a government focused on the people.

Agreed.

We need to get shut of these Tories and I increasingly think it's going to happen next election.

 

[Buster15]

fantasies, then.

britain voted left up until the 70s. it was felt, by many, that it had gone too far to the left. we all know the disaster that followed. most now will admit that it's gone too far to the right. blair was not left wing but he did have some classic left wing policies, like focus on education and public nhs at the heart of his 1997 election. he also had policies to go with the public relations. it's worth putting "public" before nhs in that sentence, too.

you can't claim majority support for nationalization across the spectrum, which does exist in the uk, and then say that the country isnt left wing. wanting nationalized public services is left wing policy. it's also highly popular.

Certainly not fantasies. I prefer to deal with the realities of life.

When I was younger, I was quite ideological and thought that the world would be a much better place with socialist governments.
But over 50 years of voting Labour at every single election and being disappointed most of the time, I have had to face the facts.
And despite you saying that the country voted left wing governments, Labour under Harold Wilson was hardly left wing. Wilson was very clever at winning general elections and as someone who voted for him and lived through his time in office, I would say that it was little different to the current Labour policies. Albeit Starmer is in a completely different era.
And I am speaking from experience.

 

[Pexbo]

 

[neverdie]

And I am speaking from experience.

I have no idea which experience you're talking about. the years you spent under relatively socialist labour government which must now be called something else because it doesn't fit or the years you spent under varieties of thatcher?

no one's saying wilson was trotsky, either.

 

[nimic]

Yeah, PR generally means you get a lot more centrist government overall without the wild swings as the norm is for alliances to be formed. There is a viewpoint that it leads to less decisions as majority governments wouldn't take over parliament, but it stops what we've had for the last decade certainly.

I'm not sure there's any evidence PR gets you more centrist governments.

 

[neverdie]

Unfortunately the P in PFI doesn't stand for public.

yeah, wasn't keen to put blair in there. but then we've just gone through a policy by policy replay of the 1997 election and the point is that he campaigned on the nhs. especially on waiting times iirc. even if it came in privatized form, the focus on healthcare and education was still standard left wing politics. but then pointing out blair's similarities to thatcher and the whole new labour thing isn't novel.

 

[Balljy]

I'm not sure there's any evidence PR gets you more centrist governments.

I thought I heard that but might be wrong.

It kind of makes sense to me as you're getting a true representation in parliament of what the public voted for and that's (probably) never going to be majority hard left or hard right which means there has to be alliances and alliances mean compromise towards the centre. I guess it's difficult to tell what would happen in the UK as our system is so setup for 2 parties, but I imagine the current centre would be the ones helping create those majorities in parliament under PR for the left or right.

 

[sun_tzu]

Lib lab green alliance with pr a manifesto commitment along with 2nd chamber reform... please finally make it happen

 

[Buster15]

I have no idea which experience you're talking about. the years you spent under relatively socialist labour government which must now be called something else because it doesn't fit or the years you spent under varieties of thatcher?

no one's saying wilson was trotsky, either.

I have no idea how old you are. But please don't tell me that I don't know what I am talking about.

 

[neverdie]

I have no idea how old you are. But please don't tell me that I don't know what I am talking about.

if you're saying that the wilson government wasn't left wing, in comparison to thatcher and all that came after, then you don't know what you're talking about or we don't agree on what counts as left wing in british politics. i'm speaking strictly economically. you need only look at rates of taxation.

 

[nimic]

I thought I heard that but might be wrong.

It kind of makes sense to me as you're getting a true representation in parliament of what the public voted for and that's (probably) never going to be majority hard left or hard right which means there has to be alliances and alliances mean compromise towards the centre. I guess it's difficult to tell what would happen in the UK as our system is so setup for 2 parties, but I imagine the current centre would be the ones helping create those majorities in parliament under PR for the left or right.

You get a lot more visible compromise and politicking, but that already takes part within the parties in two-party systems. What you avoid is every party having to appeal to the centre to such a major degree. There will be big parties that continue to do so, generally the Social Democrats and the Conservatives, but both between them and to the sides of them you get other parties that can be much more clear in their stances.

It can certainly lead to more centrist government, and it would probably do so in the UK today. On the other hand, smaller parties can push agendas that wouldn't necessarily survive in the intra-party politics of a big tent party.

 

[Sweet Square]

 

[Balljy]

You get a lot more visible compromise and politicking, but that already takes part within the parties in two-party systems. What you avoid is every party having to appeal to the centre to such a major degree. There will be big parties that continue to do so, generally the Social Democrats and the Conservatives, but both between them and to the sides of them you get other parties that can be much more clear in their stances.

It can certainly lead to more centrist government, and it would probably do so in the UK today. On the other hand, smaller parties can push agendas that wouldn't necessarily survive in the intra-party politics of a big tent party.

I think we're talking about subtly different things as I agree it makes voting for smaller parties worthwhile and they themselves won't have to appeal to the centre. I'm not sure why it would lead to laws not being fairly centrist though?

A majority is still needed for every vote in parliament and that means getting another party on-side as it's almost certain no party would have a true majority unlike now. If you take the last election, even though it was huge for the Tories they'd still need the help of the centre to get laws through.

They had 43.5%, Labour 32% and the Lib Dems 11.5%. To get any laws passed (even with support from other parties on the right), the Tories would need the Lib Dems or Labour which means compromise.

I agree that it leads to more choice and people being able to vote for exactly what they believe in which is sorely needed, but the actual law-making needs more compromise and less ability to push whatever the majority party wants the way I see it. The whole political landscape would change long term though, so I guess it's difficult to predict what would happen here.

 

[Buster15]

if you're saying that the wilson government wasn't left wing, in comparison to thatcher and all that came after, then you don't know what you're talking about or we don't agree on what counts as left wing in british politics. i'm speaking strictly economically. you need only look at rates of taxation.

Just to be clear.
I asked when was the last time that Britain voted for a left wing party.
You stated in your post that Britain voted for a left wing party in the 1970s.
The only Labour government in the 1970s was led by Harold Wilson.
And having lived through the 1970s when the government flip flopped between Wilson and Ted Health, in my opinion, the Wilson governments were not what I call left wing.
And yes of course it was more left wing than Margaret Thatcher. Pretty much anything would be more left wing than Thatcher.
And in exactly the same way, Labour under Starmer is more left wing than Liz Truss.

 

[oates]

Just to be clear.
I asked when was the last time that Britain voted for a left wing party.
You stated in your post that Britain voted for a left wing party in the 1970s.
The only Labour government in the 1970s was led by Harold Wilson.
And having lived through the 1970s when the government flip flopped between Wilson and Ted Health, in my opinion, the Wilson governments were not what I call left wing.
And yes of course it was more left wing than Margaret Thatcher. Pretty much anything would be more left wing than Thatcher.
And in exactly the same way, Labour under Starmer is more left wing than Liz Truss.

What about some of Wilson's ministers Buster? Would you have said that Barbara Castle was 'Left Wing' for example?

 

[finneh]

I think we're talking about subtly different things as I agree it makes voting for smaller parties worthwhile and they themselves won't have to appeal to the centre. I'm not sure why it would lead to laws not being fairly centrist though?

A majority is still needed for every vote in parliament and that means getting another party on-side as it's almost certain no party would have a true majority unlike now. If you take the last election, even though it was huge for the Tories they'd still need the help of the centre to get laws through.

They had 43.5%, Labour 32% and the Lib Dems 11.5%. To get any laws passed (even with support from other parties on the right), the Tories would need the Lib Dems or Labour which means compromise.

I agree that it leads to more choice and people being able to vote for exactly what they believe in which is sorely needed, but the actual law-making needs more compromise and less ability to push whatever the majority party wants the way I see it. The whole political landscape would change long term though, so I guess it's difficult to predict what would happen here.

This assumes that people wouldn't change their vote with a different voting system. There's a chance for example that if people felt the Brexit Party would have representation in Parliament that they would have voted differently (and not solely at the expense of the Tories). Likewise I'm guessing more extreme right wing parties would pop up with a % or two of the vote (again taking some of the extreme anti-immigration vote from both parties). A libertarian party might also peel some votes from the Lib Dems.

I'd say there would have been as good a chance it would have ended up with a more right wing Tory-Brexit-DUP-AN Other style coalition than a Lib-Lab-Green-SNP one (the SNP would likely require a referendum for their support also).

On a seperate note am I correct in thinking Starmer is in agreement with Kwartang on all of his measures with the exception of the abolishing of the 45% tax bracket (so in agreement with c. 95% of the budget)?

 

[Smores]

Nothing we didn't know really. That's obviously fairly big news but it won't get a mention, remember that guy who lies there got a pay off. Fact is the factional debate no longer serves a purpose so people who throw anti-semite around as a childish insult like @sun_tzu couldn't care less. Jobs done.

 

[Buster15]

What about some of Wilson's ministers Buster? Would you have said that Barbara Castle was 'Left Wing' for example?

Barbara Castle did as I am sure you know produced In Place Of strife. Which was one of the most stringent acts of parliament to constrain the power of the Trades Unions at the time.
So, would you say that she was left wing?

 

[oates]

Barbara Castle did as I am sure you know produced In Place Of strife. Which was one of the most stringent acts of parliament to constrain the power of the Trades Unions at the time.
So, would you say that she was left wing?

I'm not trying to catch you out Buster. I'd have to say that Barbara always left the impression of being a strong Socialist.

I'm not sure at what point Wilson began to struggle with Dementia but he was a Prime Minister twice-ish.

 

[neverdie]

Just to be clear.
I asked when was the last time that Britain voted for a left wing party.
You stated in your post that Britain voted for a left wing party in the 1970s.
The only Labour government in the 1970s was led by Harold Wilson.
And having lived through the 1970s when the government flip flopped between Wilson and Ted Health, in my opinion, the Wilson governments were not what I call left wing.
And yes of course it was more left wing than Margaret Thatcher. Pretty much anything would be more left wing than Thatcher.
And in exactly the same way, Labour under Starmer is more left wing than Liz Truss.

i don't think we massively disagree then. you wouldn't hold the wilson/callaghan governments as left wing, in the most rigid sense, but would admit that they were lightyears more left wing than what came after. which is only to say that the british people voted for a relatively left wing option in the 1970s. insofar as taxation went, it was borderline socialist.

 

[nimic]

That's fecked up.

 

[Sweet Square]

Nothing we didn't know really. That's obviously fairly big news but it won't get a mention, remember that guy who lies there got a pay off. Fact is the factional debate no longer serves a purpose so people who throw anti-semite around as a childish insult like @sun_tzu couldn't care less. Jobs done.

Yep pretty much this.

That's fecked up.

Another example



Reminds of Milne book The Enemy Within.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

the labour party, the parliamentary labour party, purposefully conspired against its own leadership throughout two general elections.

let's just forget about that and elect those same people, though.


brilliant. all of those pledges he made when he became leader, before he purged the party, will help transform the country.

Yep. So far Starmer has been more focused on purging the socialists and socialist policies from Labour than he has on attacking the Tories.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

what does starmer's labour represent to you? what policies will they unleash when they storm the bastille?

you should also remember that while 2019 became a ge that hung upon a nationalist view of exit from the european union, 2017 was a very close call. the point is that circumstances move the fortunes of party leaders. corbyn wasn't in opposition during and after a pandemic, a war, and the worst cost of living and general economic crisis in our lifetime. the latter all being key areas corbyn scored well on. it's nonsense to pretend that labour couldn't win from the left. they're up against a 12 year old austerity government that's already fallen apart internally and is only externally mobile by force of illusion. it's a choice labour makes to abandon its left wing positions and purge any slightly left leaning members. it's a choice they make to be right wing, that is. and anyone explaining that away without some form of proof is delusional.

Absolutely. You could put a vacuous hand puppet up against the Tories right now and it should win a GE.

Many in Labour made this choice to purge the left, to sabotage the previous leadership during a GE and to support Starmer in a continued purge of socialist members and policies.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Now this would make me vote Labour.

I don't know if we could trust Starmer to follow through with it if they won though...

 

[Reiver]

Now this would make me vote Labour.

I don't know if we could trust Starmer to follow through with it if they won though...

Me too. But I don't think Starmer is in favourite of it. He would find a reason not to follow through with it.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Without a referendum on the specific form of PR you want to introduce getting a majority, I wouldn't support the move to PR.

 

[Djemba-Djemba]

He should just downplay it and then announce it last minute before the election.

Don't give the right wing media the chance to scare the public into not voting for them at the election over it by announcing it so early.

 

[lefty_jakobz]

Why is that antisemite even commenting on Labour Party issues... he should be concentrating on running as an independent or sorting his own party out

Rachel Riley is that you?

 

[Giant Midget]

I highly doubt Starmer isn’t in favour of PR.

He’s keeping it as a potential negotiating tool with the SNP and Lib Dems for a confidence and supply agreement when Labour most likely can only have a minority government with the collapse of Scotland.